Leslie Feinberg is wrong. There’s no evidence that Joan of Arc ever dressed as a man for anything other than practical reasons. She disguised herself as a boy when she and her companions were heading to Chalons to avoid the risk of being raped by Burgundian soldiers, she obviously wore armor in battle (which isn’t distinctly male clothing, I guess), and, after she was captured by the English, she wore men’s clothing because that’s all they would give her.
Also, Joan didn’t “lead peasants against the powers that be”. Joan was a peasant herself, but her army was raised and paid for by Charles VII, and had pretty much the same composition as most armies during the Hundred Years war…a combination of knights, professional men at arms and peasant levies. And pretty much all of her lieutenants, who did the actual leading of men…de Rais, the Bastard of Orleans, La Hire, de Xaintrailles, were French gentry.
I reckon it’s not so much the fact that she was a woman living as a man, so much as the fact she was becoming a lot more popular among the people, peasants and nobles alike, than the Dauphin was. Not a good idea in feudal country.
She also had loftier goals than him - he just wanted his crown, and the English out of his designated share of France. She wanted nothing less than throw them back to the sea… and wars cost money.
I’m not positing a continuous pagan survival from pre-Roman beliefs to the hundred years’ war, but in this particular appendix she’s mostly referring to Joan’s own statements, at least for the ideas I included in the OP. Joan could have been some sort of heretic, like the Cathars or whatever other group were big in the fifteenth century. But with human sacrifice.
Just presenting what Murray says in the linked document: that Joan was allowed to choose someone, and went for Gilles. The king, that is to say, let her choose from the available leaders and then Gilles took her on in addition to his other duties.
I suppose. But, is there any other documentation of any cult sacrificing humans, or animals, anywhere in Europe at any time after Christian conversion?
Not off the top of my head, but that might be the type of thing you’d keep secret. You know how judgemental Christians can be. The Affair of the Poisons, perhaps? France again.
Correct. Also “en triton”, not “en un triton” (even though I’m not sure the latter is wrong strictly speaking, it’s not elegant or natural. The “un” is implicit.)
This, however, is just wrong “Je m’en suis remis” (I healed from it)
This was your pointless, nitpicking French lesson for the day. Bonne journée.
The version i’ve usually heard is that they put her in a cell, stripped her, and then gave her men’s clothes, thus creating something of a Catch 22. If she put on the clothes (as she was held to have done) then presto, proof of the crime. If she didn’t, well, she would be revelling in her nakedness and would have been considered wanton and full of base lusts, and that would have been the crime.
Well, there were always folk-magicians* and such in Europe, at all premodern periods – not charlatans, but practitioners who believed in their own magic (and might have seen no distinction between chanting a spell and applying an herbal poultice – magic is magic). “Witches” were folk-magicians who used their magic maliciously, and no doubt there were always some who did, or believed they were doing so. (There was also a recognized class of “cunning folk” – respectable folk-magicians who did not think of themselves as witches, and were not regarded as witches, and sometimes were hired as witch-finders.) But, that’s not the same thing as there being any kind of cult.
And, perhaps, there might have been some underground pagans keeping alive some pre-Christian beliefs and traditions and ceremonies – but, the crypto-pagans might or might not have been on speaking terms with the folk-magicians. ISTM. At least, popular imagination conflates the two groups but I don’t know whether there is actually any reason to do so.
But as for human sacrifice – that’s not a common feature, AFAIK, even in the highly imaginative records of 16th-Century witchcraft trials. The only think I can think of in period history or legend that even comes close is the blood libel occasionally spread about the Jews (abducting gentile babies to kill them and drink their blood or use it in rituals – in some versions, gentile-baby blood is an ingredient in Passover matzohs).
As distinct from high or ceremonial magicians, or magickians, like Israel Regardie, Aleister Crowley, etc. The sort who work with what Granny Weatherwax would call “books and stars and . . . jommetry.”
Oh, and FTR: The “Blood Countess” Elizabeth Bathory was not a witch either – she was certainly a sadistic serial torture-killer, but did not actually practice any kind of purported magic, bathe in the blood of virgins to preserve her youth, etc. (That actually works, BTW.)
Just to set the record straight, she was never convicted of heresy or witchcraft. She was conficted of only one charge - that of wearing men’s clothes.
[QUOTE-Deuteronomy 22:5]
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
[/QUOTE]
nod
But the salient point of all this (which I cleverly concealed in a heap of irrelevant details !) is that the Church, despite having a relatively extensive experience in these matters, couldn’t find enough material in Joan’s testimony to brand her a witch, or even a (theological) heretic. Yet they were really trying to, weren’t they ?
Yup, we went over this. She swore she’d never wear men’s clothes again, then she was forced to. Relapse was a Big Thing back then, so…
But the point is that the heresy in question was wearing pants, not than saying she heard angels & had a gift sword from God or whatnot - what most people think she was convicted & burned for, and what made her kinda sorta special in the first place (since I’m pretty sure women wearing pants weren’t that much of an oddity, even back then). On that particular count, the interrogators never could conclusively assert she wasn’t actually on Heaven’s radio frequency.
Not that there’s such a thing, but that’s beside the point
“Je m’en suis remis” (I healed from it)